To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: CPPH_Info-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ There are 2 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest: 1. Fwd: CHA Quarterly Update From: Grant 2. W. Sherwood Evaluation of 7/24/02 Gov't Report on HOPE VI From: Grant ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 1 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:33:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Grant Subject: Fwd: CHA Quarterly Update --- Kathryn Haines wrote: Grant, The CHA Quarterly Update will be about Housing Choice Vouchers and Relocation. It will be held August 8, from 8:30-10:30 at the offices of Mayor, Brown, Rowe and Maw at 190 S. LaSalle. People who would like to attend should R.S.V.P. to The Metropolitan Planning Council at (312) 922-5616. Kat __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:41:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Grant Subject: W. Sherwood Evaluation of 7/24/02 Gov't Report on HOPE VI HOUSING NEWS HIGHLIGHTS -- Tuesday, July 30, 2002 HOPE VI - BEST PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNED, 1992-2002 from Sherwood Research Associates We have received a copy of the 77 page report, "HOPE VI, Best Practices and Lessons Learned, 1992-2002," from PHADA. PHADA commented on this report in its July 24 newsletter, "Advocate." The report is dated June 14, 2002, apparently because the report was due from HUD to Congress in June. I know of a number of housing advocacy organizations that asked HUD for copies of this report only last week, but were told by HUD that it would not be provided to them. Some Congressional staff on key authorizing committees said last week that they were not aware of having received the report. I do not know how widely it has been distributed, or when. Apparently the distribution has been limited. Thanks to PHADA for making this copy available to me. Wayne Sherwood The rough breakdown of the contents of the report, in my estimation, is as follows: Claims as to the good intentions of HOPE VI 70.0% Claims as to the results of HOPE VI 20.0% Problems of HOPE VI 12.0% Successes of HOPE VI 8.0% Undocumented success stories 6.0% Documented success stories 2.0% Lessons learned and best practices 9.0% Specific changes recommended for HOPE VI 1.0% The report concludes that changes are needed in the HOPE VI program, but few specifics are provided. The report was written "by Anonymous." At least in the copy I received from PHADA, there is no indication as to who wrote the report. The report does not even contain a transmittal letter to Congress signed by a HUD official. There is no indication of whether this report was prepared under the direction of Secretary Martinez, or Deputy Secretary Jackson, or Asst. Sec. for PIH Michael Liu, or by the HOPE VI shop, or by the Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R), or by a contractor to any of the above, e.g. Abt Associates or the Urban Institute. There is a HUD logo on the cover by way of identification, but apparently no one claims responsibility for preparing or writing or approving or transmitting the report to Congress. It is "by Anonymous." There is no indication that anyone at HUD even endorses the findings and conclusions contained in the report. There is a considerable amount of bad news about HOPE VI in the report, but it is mixed in with even greater claims for HOPE VI's success. Many of the claims of success are in anecdotal form, rather than well-documented evaluations. This approach reminds me of the "modified, limited hang-out" approach sometimes been taken by politicians who admit that some problems may have occurred, and imply that nobody is at fault, but put any blame that might exist on others. The principal message that seems to emerge from the thicket of this report is that HUD's intentions for the HOPE VI program have been admirable and well-conceived, and to the extent that there have been any failures or shortcomings in implementing HOPE VI, these have been largely the fault of PHAs who are often inept and unable to administer this complex and sophisticated program. Who wrote the report? When a federal agency submits a report to Congress that claims to be an evaluation of a program that has been in operation for 10 years, and for which Congress has appropriated over $4 billion, it is important to say who authored the evaluation so that readers can form their own opinion as to: (1) the authors' qualifications for conducting this evaluation; and (2) their relative degree of independence from those administering the program. For example, if a new weapons system were being evaluated by DoD, or if a new drug were being evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration, or if a piece of funded research were being evaluated by the National Science Foundation, the person or agency doing the evaluation would be named. In contrast, this report is anonymous. It appears to have been written by someone with close access to HUD. The author(s) has obtained a great deal of information concerning what HUD has done in the past, and what HUD's goals and intentions have been. There is also a lot of information from the PHAs' own HOPE VI plans. There is information from the "quarterly progress report" summaries that have been received by HUD. There are also hints about HUD's thinking on future directions of the program. My own opinion is that the report was probably written by a combination of HUD staff and consultants, perhaps even with the help of some press agents, and that it therefore contains pretty much what HUD wanted to see in such an evaluation. To me, that leads to some conclusions about the objectivity of this evaluation. There is little indication that anyone outside of official circles was consulted in preparing this evaluation. What are the sources of information used in the report? There are only scattered footnotes in the report documenting the sources of information used in this evaluation. I would make the following guesses about these sources, though I acknowledge that these are only guesses.  The descriptions of HUD actions or intentions seems to have come from interviews with HUD officials or information in HUD's files.  The information about what PHAs planned to do with the HOPE VI money appears to have been taken from Housing Authority HOPE VI applications and plans, from press releases and from interviews with HUD.  In terms of what PHAs have actually done, the information seems to come primarily from the HUD quarterly progress reports. Some additional information has apparently been extracted from a small number of very preliminary case studies that are not very far along.  There is very little information about completed HOPE VI projects, which is understandable given that the report says that only 15 of the 165 HOPE VI grants made to date have been completed.  In the majority of the examples cited in the report, no source for the information is given. For example, on page 31, it says, "Charlotte is the only grantee with a majority of all interested residents returned to their revitalized sites." I suspect that this may come as a surprise to many of the former residents of HOPE VI sites in Charlotte, whose protests have been chronicled for years in the local press. I can only guess that this claim is based upon Housing Authority reports to HUD, without much effort to investigate whether others have different views. The following is some of the not very encouraging news about HOPE VI contained in the report.  HOPE VI is badly stalled in many communities.  HUD has awarded more than $4.5 billion in HOPE VI program funds since 1993. (Thru FY2001)  As of March 31, 2002, PHAs have expended $1.78 billion (39%).  Only 15 of the 165 grants are completed.  PHAs and their partners have demolished approximately 51,000 public housing units, and relocated approximately 41,000 families.  So far, only 13,869 public housing units have been built.  So far, only 6,869 of the newly developed units are occupied by residents who were displaced by HOPE VI demolition. [Note: quarterly progress reports to HUD say "planned to return."] Lessons learned. Scattered throughout the report are boxes containing "lessons learned." Most of these "lessons learned" do not rise above the level of woolly generalizations that would appear to state the obvious. In addition, the report does not state who learned these lessons. The following are examples. "Accountability and legitimate partnerships are crucial to the successful implementation of a HOPE VI project." "Affordable housing options should involve a continuum of choices. Residents should be presented with viable options to select housing that best meets their needs." "Housing designs should reflect the community in which they are located." "CSS programs should include services for special needs groups. Youth, elderly, and the disabled all have their own unique needs that require specific programming." "Market rate units can provide a strong foundation for the viability of HOPE VI developments." "The involvement of public housing residents and other stakeholders must be integrated into the broader revitalization plan." Best Practices The "best practices" appear in some cases to reflect HUD policy choices. There is no indication of the criteria that were used for selecting "best practices," about the selection process used to identify "best practices", or even about who identified these as best practices and how? One assumes, therefore, that the selections of "best practices" was done by HUD and fed to the author(s) of the report by HUD and dutifully included as suggested by HUD. For example, one "best practice" is time limits for HOPE VI residents, which are being used by four grantees: Raleigh NC, Spartanburg SC, Knoxville TN and Charlotte NC. The criteria by which this has been selected as a "best practice" are not stated. The description merely states that "public response" to time limits has been good in two of the communities, and "Charlotte has received positive feedback from other agencies..." The New Haven Housing Authority was listed as a "best practice," with the following description: In 1993, the Housing Authority of the City of New Haven (HANH) received a $45 million HOPE VI grant to revitalize Elm Haven, a 1941 public housing development consisting of over 800 units in both low rise and high-rise buildings. The early years of the HOPE VI grant coincided with HANH falling into troubled status, with little capacity to administer the grant or the redevelopment. The City and Housing Authority did not work cooperatively, and Housing Authority administration was widely viewed as a separate entity with no controls and little competence. By 1998, with the project in default and the grant at risk, the City, HANH and HUD came to the table with a sense of urgency. (After that, things improved.) If that is a "best practice", one has to ask..... Criticisms of HOPE VI. The report is short on criticisms of the HOPE VI program, except for what appears to be HUD's criticism of most PHAs for being unprepared to carry out the HOPE VI program, and for delays at the PHA level. The report takes a highly favorable view of the funds being "leveraged" in HOPE VI developments, and of the increase in affordable housing being produced under HOPE VI. For example, funds being provided under other federal and state programs such as CDBG are counted as "leveraged" funds, even though those funds would have been available and spent with or without HOPE VI. It also appears that the amounts being spent for housing under the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program and other already existing affordable housing programs are being credited to the HOPE VI program. The LIHTC program is highly popular and in great demand. The LIHTC units would have been built regardless of the existence of HOPE VI. There are often advantages to developers to build these units on HOPE VI sites, but these units cannot reasonably be counted as net increases to the affordable housing stock attributable to the HOPE VI program. Nor can Section 8 vouchers used as replacement units be counted as net additions to the supply of affordable housing attributable to HOPE VI. Recommendations. The report contains few specific recommendations for changing the HOPE VI program. These include reducing the size of HOPE VI grants in the future, reducing the amount of HUD oversight, and instituting requirements that PHAs assure HUD in advance that they are ready to receive the grants before HUD awards them money. Since these ideas have already been presented to Congress in testimony by Michael Liu, HUD Asst. Sec. for PIH, it appears that the source of these ideas was HUD, and that they were transcribed and included here by the author(s) of this report. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/